"Econoclastic" Economics 101

"As the proxies for unborn generations, we have no other choice."

In "Econoclastic" Economics 101, retired educator and
environmentalist, Hugh Robertson, explores the intimate
connections between the environment and the economy, an economy which is
based on continuous growth fuelled by a pattern of ever-increasing and
unsustainable consumption.

Hugh Robertson appeals for recognition of
the urgent need to address this pattern of unsustainable consumption,
and calls on all voters to "question and challenge our political parties
relentlessly."

In recent years the environmental debate has focused increasingly on
the growth of greenhouse gases and their impact on climate change.
Climate scientists and climate skeptics battle one another over whether
we will hit an irreversible tipping point when atmospheric carbon
dioxide levels reach 400 or 600 parts per million or whether it will be a
3 degree or a 5 degree rise in global temperatures that will catapult
us into climate chaos. Others even question the notion of anthropogenic
(man-made) climate change.

In the heat of the [now long over]
debate, we forget that rising atmospheric greenhouse gases are simply a
symptom of a system out of balance at ground level. In the short term,
it is our ecological footprint (which measures our "ground level"
activity) rather than our carbon footprint (which measures our
greenhouse gas emissions) that will initially drive changes in our
economic system and, subsequently, in our lifestyles.

Our
ecological or "ecofootprint" represents the amount of land and water
required to provide both the resources that we consume and to eliminate
the waste that we create. As a global society, we are now consuming
resources and creating waste well in excess of the regenerative capacity
of the Earth. Canada has overshot nature’s biocapacity four times - in
other words, if everyone lived at our level of material consumption, we
would need four planets.

The resources of the planet are not only finite, they are also
held in an intricate balance best described by James Lovelock as the
Gaia theory. An economic system is only sustainable if it operates
within this balance. The old adage may be trite but it is true: the
economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. If we interfere
with nature’s balance by destroying biodiversity and by polluting our
water, land and air, we will unleash cascading natural failures that
will first decimate economic life before devastating our civilization.

Ecological
exploitation has destroyed societies in the past. Ronald Wright and
Jared Diamond have chronicled the demise of the Easter Islanders and the
Mayans who, by ransacking their resource base, doomed their
civilizations. In 1975, the Club of Rome warned us that we risked
exceeding the carrying capacity of nature unless we curbed our rapacious
consumption. Unlike earlier isolated societies, the destructive power
of contemporary global consumerism could take down the whole planet.

The planet can no longer afford political, economic and ecological myopia.

Whether we have hit any irreversible tipping points in resource
depletion or atmospheric carbon dioxide is unknown. We have certainly
hit - and possibly surpassed - peaks in oil, natural gas, fresh water,
arable land, clean air and forests. We have probably passed the tipping
point for most edible fish stocks worldwide. The Atlantic cod fishery,
for example, has moved from the geography to the history textbooks in
the short space of two decades. Fluctuating gasoline prices are merely a
taste of turbulent times ahead.

In the economic euphoria and the
steadily increasing standard of living for many during the past two
centuries, certain myths and values have ingrained themselves in the
conventional wisdom. In the West particularly, these beliefs have almost
become part of our genetic make-up. The major question now is what
impact the impending environmental changes will have on these iconic
economic beliefs.

Dominant in our western economic ideology is
the notion of constant growth and perpetual progress and prosperity. But
present economic growth rates, exemplified by our expansive
ecofootprints, far exceed the biocapacity and the regenerative
resilience of nature.

We are no longer living off nature’s interest, we
are eating into nature’s capital. Deficit financing does not operate in
the natural world and there are no vulture funds to rescue floundering
companies. We, the planetary shareholders, have hit nature’s bottom line
and the question is now how we stave off ecological bankruptcy.

As
a global society, we have to confront both the idolatry and the
ideology of economic growth. Growth underpins our values, our
assumptions and our lifestyles - it has even bred a sense of
entitlement. Our challenge will be to build a stable state economy that
operates within the sustainable limits of nature. The challenge is
daunting because the growth imperative is deeply embedded in our
political economy and in our minds.

We cannot scale back our
economic growth rates unless we curb growth’s Siamese twin: consumption.
Growth is fuelled by consumption and together they feed on nature’s
limited resources. Changing the consumption habits of North Americans
will not be easy because spending has become such an integral part of
our culture. Even politicians remind us that it is our moral duty to
shop.

"Consumption" was once
used as a synonym for tuberculosis.

Consumption is destructive both in the scarce resources
that it uses and in the waste that it creates. It is estimated that 90
percent of our consumer purchases are in a landfill within 12 months.
Not even "green consumerism" is a panacea because, as recent studies
have shown, "greenwashing" camouflages many of the detrimental effects
of so-called "green" products. Furthermore, "green consumerism" is still
consumerism; it merely comforts our conscience.

It is only in
the past century that "consumption" has shed its negative image and
become a central iconic feature of our economic culture. It was once
used as a synonym for tuberculosis and dictionaries still define
"consume" as "to destroy, waste, or spend." The excessive lifestyles of
the wealthy elites in earlier years were often referred to derogatively
as "conspicuous consumption."

What will change our destructive
consumption patterns? It is unlikely that governments or corporations
will lead the offensive. Will it be individual self-restraint or will
excessive consumption, like smoking, soon become unacceptable as a
measure of social standing? It may fall to that prominent driver of
change – increased prices due to resource scarcity – or it may take a
major environmental crisis to fundamentally change our unsustainable
consumption.

Growth, consumption and environmental degradation
are closely correlated with income. A recent study by the Canadian
Centre for Policy Alternatives demonstrated empirically what has always
been suspected: our oversized ecofootprints are a function of income.
The richest 10 percent of Canadians have an ecofootprint that is two and
a half times the size of the poorest 10 percent. Another study from the
Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington quantified the
relationship between work and the environment. The longer Americans
work, the more they earn and the more they consume with a commensurate
increase in their ecofootprints.

If socio-economic factors, like
income and lifestyle, can have such negative ecological impacts on the
common wealth, should society impose constraints? Do we allow a wealthy
minority to commandeer the commons to the disadvantage of the majority,
both born and unborn? Resolving income disparity is sensitive territory
in our mixed market democratic system with its delicate balance between
individual and collective rights.

Modern governments have
assumed a powerful and intrusive economic role and a variety of tools
allows them to influence the direction of the economy. But governments
also have an overriding responsibility to act as the custodians of our
natural legacy - the source of all economic wealth - for future
citizens. We look to our politicians for principled leadership and for
vision and courage - often in defiance of our own short term
self-interest. We expect our elected officials to articulate and foster
the moral and ethical imperatives that shape and sustain a vibrant
society.

We are in the midst of federal elections in North
America surrounded by environmental crises that are rooted in our mega
footprints: increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes, the death
spiral of the polar icecap and rapidly rising atmospheric levels of
carbon dioxide. Previous governments of all stripes pontificated
endlessly on the emerging ecological crisis but undertook little
concrete action. The planet can no longer afford political, economic and
ecological myopia. The crucial question in this important election is
whether we, the grassroots voters, will ask the tough questions needed
to drive changes in environmental policy.

We cannot allow the
pollsters and the politicians to separate and juxtapose the "economy"
and the "environment" as opposite and alternative election issues: that
is Orwellian doublespeak. The economy and the environment are
inseparable and polarizing them for political purposes is a phony and
reckless strategy. On these and other environment related issues, we
must question and challenge our political parties relentlessly. As the proxies for unborn generations, we have no other choice.

- Originally published in the New Edinburgh News in Ottawa, Canada. Reprinted with permission of the author.